|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 74 Records
-
1972 (4) TMI 89 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the existence of an alternative remedy, statutory or otherwise, is not an absolute bar to the grant of the extraordinary relief under articles 226/227 of the Constitution. It is only a circumstance which the High Court, as a matter of practice, but not as a cast-iron rule of law, takes into account, while exercising its extraordinary powers under the aforesaid articles. The objection was raised before the learned single judge, who rejected it in these terms In the circumstances of this case, I find that the impugned order was passed by the Assessing Authority without observing the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, without jurisdiction. I have no hesitation in quashing the same in this writ petition, even if the petitioner did not avail of the remedies provided under the Act. We are in respectful agreement with the above observations. In the light of what has been said above, this appeal fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1972 (4) TMI 88 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... can be said to be an authority only for the proposition that when the Government sells its own forest produce, it cannot be said to be carrying on business in that commodity, whereas the unreported decision, first referred to, can be said to be an authority for the proposition that sales tax having been paid to the Government and as it is taxable at one point only, no sales tax can be levied from the petitioner for selling the firewood to others. It is, however, plain that this unreported decision although in conclusion supports the view which we have taken does not deal with the definitions of dealer and business to which we have made elaborate reference. Since no other contention was raised we would allow the writ petition and quash the impugned assessment order by the issue of a writ of certiorari. The demand notice issued in pursuance of the said assessment order would automatically be quashed. The petitioner will get his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (4) TMI 87 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... had sufficient mens rea leading to the inference of wilful suppression of turnover, there could be no levy of penalty. We are not able to accept this contention, for, if there was non-disclosure of a portion of the turnover from the regular account books and the turnover has actually been suppressed from the regular account books, it could easily be inferred that the assessee had the necessary mens rea to exclude such turnover from his regular accounts, with a view to evade payment of tax on such turnover. As a matter of fact, section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which empowers the assessing authority to levy penalty in cases of this kind, does not make it a condition that the assessee should have the necessary mens rea before he is found guilty of making certain suppressions. In our view, the imposition of penalty in this case cannot legally be taken exception to. The tax case is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1972 (4) TMI 86 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his to be set aside. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that in the order there is a clear mention that purchases amounting to Rs. 89,000 were made in the market and that, to that extent, the return was false. The penalty has not been imposed only in respect of purchases to this extent. At this stage it is not necessary for us to go into this matter. It is the common case of both the parties that the tax has already been assessed. The matter has been taken up in appeal. It will be open to the department to take up proceedings with regard to the imposition of penalty, subject to any rules with regard to limitation, etc., in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above, and this matter can be gone into during such proceedings if any. For the reasons given above, we accept this appeal, reverse the order of the learned Single judge and make the rule absolute and quash the impugned order. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1972 (4) TMI 85 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Marketing Society. Mere exercise of control by the Marketing Society does not take away the right of the Tahsil Association to ultimately sell the goods, whether it is with the approval of the Marketing Society or not. The seller of the goods is the Tahsil Association and the title passes to the purchasers by the act of the Tahsil Association. 9.. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Division Bench case referred to above. That paragraph does not deal with the liability of the sub-agent or the agricultural association for payment of sales tax on transactions effected by the agricultural association. The general remarks made in that paragraph do not affect the liability to pay sales tax on such transactions. 10.. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is that the assessee is a dealer liable to tax and so against the assessee. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (4) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er the given trade mark. It may be observed at this stage that there is no material on the record to show that the machines left the factory without any label and that the labelling was done according to the need of a particular distributor in the godown at Delhi. It would also be pertinent to mention that on this aspect, no arguments were advanced even before the Tribunal nor was any finding invited on the same. In this view of the matter, there can be no manner of doubt that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the movement of machines had been occasioned by the aforesaid agreements between the manufacturers and the distributors. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the department, finding that the machines moved from Faridabad to Delhi in pursuance of the agreements of sale which have been termed as distribution agreements. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (4) TMI 83 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.S.T.R. No. 284 of 1964 decided on 6th February, 1969., has held that hosiery means an underwear or underclothing, i.e., articles which are used next to the skin. The Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Hosiery Mills v. State of Rajasthan 1967 19 S.T.C. 416., has held that hosiery means machine-knitted garments. Now, topas and mufflers are machineknitted garments and are worn next to the skin. Therefore, they satisfy both the tests. We have thus no hesitation in holding that the two articles in question are articles of hosiery and are covered by the Notification No. ST-4562-II/X-902(7-M)-57 dated 1st October, 1962, and are taxable at 1 paisa per rupee. That being so, they cannot be taxed as ready-made garments nor can they be taxed as unclassified goods. We answer the question as reframed by us accordingly. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 100. There will be one set of costs only. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (4) TMI 82 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with the assessee s family. On the other hand, there is a positive finding that he was not joint with the assessee, nor had he any connection with the assessee s business. In the circumstances, he could not be regarded as an adult male member of the assessee s family for purposes of the service of a notice under section 21. Accordingly, we hold that the notice under section 21 had not been vaildly served. In view of our answer to question No. (2), it is not necessary to answer question No. (1). Assuming that section 21 was rightly applied by the department, it was necessary that a notice under section 21 should have been served. Without the service of such a notice, the Sales Tax Officer cannot assume jurisdiction under section 21. We accordingly answer question No. (2) in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. We return no answer to question No. (1). The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (4) TMI 81 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... di) Bhijali ka here kissme saman jismay Bulb samilith hi (When rendered into English it reads as follows Electrical goods of every description including bulbs. ) That case is not apposite to the present case. 18.. We are clearly of the view that the so-called electrodes manufactured by the assessee, in the present case, are really not electrodes but are welding material in the form of rods. No one in common parlance will call them electrical goods. The view we take was also taken in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ravi Auto Stores 1968 22 S.T.C. 172. by the Madras High Court. 19.. Our answer to the question referred is as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the so-called electrodes, which are manufactured and marketed by the appellant (assessee) could not be treated as electrical goods falling in entry No. 30 of Part II of Schedule II of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Parties shall bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (4) TMI 80 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the State, he is entitled to get a refund of the tax paid under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on his purchases under section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with the proviso to section 4 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The fact that he will be entitled to get a refund of the tax if paid by him on his purchases will not take the disputed turnover out of the category of taxable turnover. It may be that it is an idle formality for the revenue to insist on the disputed turnover being included in the taxable turnover and demand a tax thereon and subsequently refund the same on a proper application made by the assessee under section 4. But so far as the statutory provisions go, the conclusion is inescapable that the disputed turnover is part of the taxable turnover on which tax has to be paid. Therefore, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. The tax case is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1972 (4) TMI 79 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f sales or purchases. From the above definition of place of business , as given in the rules, it is pretty clear that no distinction has been made in respect of purchase tax goods or sales tax goods. Rather they are taken at par and the emphasis is on where the accounts of sales or purchases are kept and that is the place of business of that dealer. Admittedly in this case, the assessee has his place of business at Bhubaneswar where his accounts of purchases and sales are kept. Therefore, there is nothing wrong for the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Bhubaneswar, to tax the assessee under whose jurisdiction the assessee has his place of business . On the above analysis, the finding of the learned Additional Tribunal is utterly untenable. 6.. We would answer question (i) in the affirmative and question (ii) in the negative. In the result, the references are allowed but in the circumstances without costs. G.K. MISRA, C.J.-I agree. References answered accordingly.
-
1972 (4) TMI 78 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urged that calcium carbide is in fact used by welders for creating heat and it is therefore fuel. The trade also understands it as such. We are unable to accept this submission. As mentioned above, it is clear to the trade that calcium carbide is a substance which is used for producing acetylene gas by subjecting it to a chemical reaction with water. What is used as a fuel by the welders is not calcium carbide but a mixture of oxygen and acetylene gas. It is not possible to classify either calcium carbide or water, the two substances which chemically react to produce acetylene gas, as fuel. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the Commissioner of Sales Tax as follows Calcium carbide is taxable as chemical under Notification No. ST. 3391/X-1012/1962 dated 1st July, 1962, and not as an unclassified item. Commissioner of Sales Tax is entitled to receive costs of this reference from the dealer which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (4) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... these circumstances, I am of the view that the transferee-company should also hold the statutory meeting of its shareholders. However, this petition is not to be dismissed. In the Calcutta case referred to above, the petition for approving the scheme of amalgamation came to be dismissed not on the ground that the transferee-company had not held the statutory meeting of its shareholders but on merits. Further, in the present case as already seen, all the 13 shareholders of the transferee-company have given affidavits of consent for the approval of the scheme of amalgamation. The only lacuna is that the statutory meeting of the shareholders of the transferee-company has not been held. Therefore, I think it is but proper to keep the petition pending and given an opportunity to the transferee-company to satisfy the statutory requirement. The petition is adjourned by two weeks to enable the transferee-company to take necessary steps in order to satisfy the statutory requirements.
-
1972 (4) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Appeals from orders, Court – Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... be appropriate for us in these circumstances to say whether the said interim order should be vacated or confirmed or modified since there has been no expression of opinion on this point by the learned company judge. We have also refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the several allegations pertaining to the validity of the debentures and creation of security the learned company judge has himself not said anything concerning them. There has been no complaint made to us concerning the constitution or personnel of the board. It was at one time suggested to us during the hearing that one of the secured creditors may also be on the board of trustees, but when attention was drawn to the fact that Shri Jindra Lal was made chairman on the suggestion of all the parties this argument was not pursued further. In the result, all the appeals (Company Appeals Nos. 2 to 5 of 1972), subject to the above clarifications, are dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
-
1972 (4) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of, Extra Ordinary General Meeting, Contents and manner of service of notice and persons on whom it is to be served
-
1972 (4) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Court – Jurisdiction of, Powers of Court to rectify register of members, Meetings and Proceedings - Exercise of Voting Rights in Respect of Shares Held in Trust
-
1972 (4) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... these circumstances, I am of the view that the transferee-company should also hold the statutory meeting of its shareholders. However, this petition is not to be dismissed. In the Calcutta case referred to above, the petition for approving the scheme of amalgamation came to be dismissed not on the ground that the transferee-company had not held the statutory meeting of its shareholders but on merits. Further, in the present case, as already seen, all the 13 shareholders of the transferee-company have given affidavits of consent for the approval of the scheme of amalgamation. The only lacuna is that the statutory meeting of the shareholders of the transferee-company has not been held. Therefore, I think it is but proper to keep the petition pending and give an opportunity to the transferee-company to satisfy the statutory requirement. The petition is adjourned by two weeks to enable the transferee-company to take necessary steps in order to satisfy the statutory requirements.
-
1972 (4) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Intermediate products - Liability to duty - Excise duty - Manner of collection - Non-excisable goods - Connotation of
-
1972 (4) TMI 36 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire property held by the deceased valued at ₹ 12,23,794 was chargeable to estate duty?
Held that:- If the parties as aforesaid were governed in matters of property, succession and inheritance by the rules of Hindu law including the rules as to joint family property, its distribution according to the rule of survivorship and the right of a son in it by birth, the High Court would be right in its view that the accountable persons, having been born long before 1948, had already acquired a right by birth in the property held by their father, a right expressly saved by section 3 of the Act. There was, therefore, no question of that interest passing to them on the death of their father as envisaged by section 5 of the Estate Duty Act. In this view, the judgment of the High Court under challenge has to be upheld. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed
-
1972 (4) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Law Applicable, Penalty Provisions ... ... ... ... ..... in the instant case, the assessee claimed that a sum of rupees one lakh was not taxable. The Commissioner should have examined that plea on merits. He could take the action that he did only if he rejected the plea of the assessee. It must not be forgotten that under section 33B the Commissioner can himself modify or enhance the assessment and that he can only do if he considers and decides on merits the objection raised by the assessee. We are, therefore, of opinion that without going into the merits of the claim of the assessee it was not possible for the Commissioner to say that the order of the Income-tax Officer had caused any prejudice to the interests of the revenue and, as such, he was not competent to set aside the assessment order and remand the matter to the Income-tax Officer. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
|
